lemonade_get_business_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only lists the report contents without stating that it is a read-only operation, whether a game day must be active, or any other behavioral traits. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a clear list of content areas. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately enumerates the return contents. However, it omits any statement about when the report is valid (e.g., before/after starting a day) or how it relates to game state, leaving a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description does not need to explain inputs. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's mention of the report contents indirectly confirms that no inputs are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource: the player-visible business report with an enumerated list of its contents (balance sheet, inventory, location bars, staff, upgrades, P&L). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_day_results or get_month_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lemonade_observe or get_month_history. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.